[CREATE] Libre Graphics Whatever - charter prototype

[Andreas Vox]

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Dave Neary [mailto:nearyd at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Dave Neary
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 2010 11:55
> An: Jon Nordby
> Cc: create; Andreas Vox
> Betreff: Re: [CREATE] Libre Graphics Whatever - charter prototype
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Coming late to discussion - I was going to stay out of it, but saw this
> (edited for length)...
> 
> Jon Nordby wrote:
> >> 3 Membership
> >> Members can be any person or organization. Each member has one vote.
> >> Decisions need 3/4 of the votes, elections to the board need 1/2 of
> the
> >> votes. (TBD)
> >
> > _As I see it_, we want to provide a common face for libre graphics
> > software, and not just for hobbyist and amateur users. We want it to
> > be a professional level organization, so that we (in the long term)
> > can make big things happen, often in contact and cooperation with
> > other professional level organizations. If you do not see things the
> > same way, please voice your opinion.
> >
> > To make such an organization, at least in the start, I see three
> > classes of projects/organizations as eligable for membership:
> > 1) Projects making free and open source graphics software.
> > 2) Related foundations, meta-projects and intrest organizations:
> > 3) Commercial companies that use and support libre graphics software
> >
> > Some differentiation between the different classes of members might
> be
> > wanted, to insure the right mix. All the communication and conduct of
> > the organization should be transparent to the wider public, but only
> > members have a formal vote. Each member gets one vote, and is
> > represented by an official rep and at least one vice-rep.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that you want members to be people, and not
> organisations or projects - and definitely not both.
> 
> Several reasons come to mind:
> * If people *and* organisations are members, some people (representing
> themselves and the organisation) can have more than one vote. Someone
> who represents 5 or 6 smaller projects could end up with lots.
> * If only organisations are members, you are giving an inordinately
> large voice to the smaller projects - larger projects like the GIMP run
> the risk of having their community viewpoint drowned out by smaller
> projects
> * You would need some kind of process (elections, for example) for
> projects to name the person who gets to participate on behalf of the
> project - which doesn't feel like a good or useful use of volunteer
> time, and is a potential source of conflict.
> * How do you define eligible projects? Is a one-person free software
> graphics application OK? How about a company that has several products
> (like Yorba, which makes Shotwell, Fillmore and Lombard - would they
> get
> 3 representatives or one? How about projects with no legal definition
> at
> all, like the GIMP?
> 
> The unit in free software projects has always been the individual, not
> the company or project, and I'd like to see it stay that way. I agree
> that you need to have some barrier to entry to ensure a certain level
> of
> engagement - and that barrier is hard to define. Peer referral and
> invitation seems to me like the best way to handle that problem, but it
> doesn't scale well over size or time. But how to ensure a high
> engagement level of members is a different question, I think, to
> whether
> you should have individuals or organisations as members.
> 

Hi Dave,

I agree that individuals should form the base of the organization. That's
why I propose that organizational members get only one vote, so they can't
dominate the organization.

The reason why I want organizational members is that organizations like the
GNOME or KDE Foundation have a charter themselves, and that limits how they
can spend their money. As a member of the new organization they might
participate in projects which might be closed to them otherwise (I argue
from an understanding of German law: a tax-exempt association can only
transfer money to another organization if its goals align. I'm pretty sure
the KDE e.V. could not give money to Inkscape or Blender directly, but they
could participate in a project under the umbrella of the new LG
organization).

That's also why I propose to open the possibility to transfer funding to
Endorsed Projects. If that's not as a possibility in the charter, it may
create problems later on the road.

Cheers,
/Andreas